About your Search

20121128
20121128
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
of a gripping, terrifying spy novel. you got a bioweapons scientist and covert cia officer who is working on developing all sorts of biological weapons that are used in extreme interrogations. some of those interrogations with the bioweapons result in death. and the cia, what does it do about this? the agent who is involved and apparently who has a discomfort with what he's been doing gets his drinks spiked against the cia. it is an extremely convoluted, intriguing case and as you well outlined but is extremely convoluted. it's ten years old, the kennedy assassination and many if not a all -- >> that is my next question. since it is so old, a number of witnesses they would need, some of his fellow officers now in their 20s or 30s would be in their 70s or 80s. not only could they be dead but their minds are certainly not what they used to be which is always a problem in an old case that comes to court after decades. but in this particular case, just getting evidence, you're talking about getting evidence from the cia. >> well the family is having an extremely difficult time getting evidenc
at damage control. u.n. ambassador susan rice's trip to capitol hill, she and the acting cia director, michael morel, meeting with republican senators john mccain, kelly ayotte and lindsay graham, who were not pleased with what they heard. >> it is clear that the information she gave the american people was incorrect when she said it was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. it was not, and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case, including statements by libyans as well as other americans who are fully aware that people don't bring mortars and rocket-propelled grenades to spontaneous demonstrations. >> in a statement after the meeting, ambassador rice said that neither she nor anyone in the administration intended to mislead the american people. but the breaking news concerns the part in her sunday talk show statements that substituted the word "extremists" for al qaeda. remember, the administration said she was working from edited talking points. the question is, who did the editing? today, the senators say that acting direct
is that the consulate in benghazi was not an embassy of any typical kind. it really looks like a cia listening station. the kind of security arrangements that were in place were inadequate but it wasn't an embassy. when you build an embassy, there's a formal process about the kinds of materials you use and the setback from the street and the kinds of security measures in place. benghazi, you know, didn't rise to that and as a sort of -- so, you know, there's sort of apples and oranges. but the fact is she's introduced a new line of criticism against ambassador rice. >> do you think it's relevant, peter -- do you think it's relevant the question that susan collins is now raising as part of, let's say the president did say, i want susan rice as my secretary of state, they have the process, they go before and the senators consider her, do you think it's legitimate, this issue that she's brought up now? >> well, a, it was 14 years ago. b, al qaeda unfortunately wasn't deemed to be a significant threat and, c, it's not even clear that she, you know, was in any way responsible for the lack of, you know, mov
there was some cia activity there. what exactly it was and what the cia's told involvement was, why there was a consulate there, wasn't even a consulate, didn't do normal consulate duties. what was it all about? by won't know until the investigation is completed and released. >> senator ayotte said when you're an ambassador to the united nations -- i want to get your thoughts on this. she said, look, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation responsibilities. i guess the implication being that she would have been aware of other things that were different or contradicted directly to what she went and said on television. does this cast any doubt on her story? general clark has made what i've heard from everybody who knows her that she is an incredibly honest and forthright person. >> well, i think there's a bigger question here, erin, and that's the credibility of the administration on these national security issues and whether they politicized a national security issue that led to the death of four americans. i mean, i do -- i don't agree that the ameri
cia director has some serious problems as well. president obama pulls out all the stops to keep middle class taxes low, but will congress go along with higher taxes for the rich? plus, a long secret u.s. plan, get this, to explode an atomic bomb on the moon. what were they thinking? i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." >>> today we may be at the tipping point for one of the most important decisions president obama needs to make as he begins his second term. on capitol hill republicans including moderate republicans are sending the president a clear warning, don't nominate susan rice to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state. rice is the current u.s. ambassador to the united nations. she spent a second day meeting with senators trying to explain some of her inaccurate comments she made after the september 11th terrorist attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. cnn's senior congressional correspondent dana bash is joining us now from capitol hill with the very latest. what happened today, dana? >> reporter: wolf, it was one thing for susan rice to be criticize
're even more concerned, centers around the information that the cia had just after the attack about possible involvement in the benghazi attack that killed ambassador chris stevens and those three other americans. now, ambassador rice did not make reference to this information in her talk show appearances. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american people. and what the senators are saying is, as a cabinet member, ambassador rice is privy to this conflicting information, she should have been more discerning when she went on those talk shows, and that the secretary of state should ambassador rice be nominated needs more independent, not just held to party lines. let's take a listen to what senators graham and ayotte said yesterday after those meetings. >> b
the story, ambassador rice has been under really intense scrutiny for publicly repeating cia talking points that the attack that killed four americans in benghazi, back on september 11th, have been connected to protests against an anti-muslim video. diplomatic e-mails showed within a matter of hour of that attack the assault was linked to terrorists. i with aant to bring in colin l. welcome. we saw senator collins speak on the hill, she was one of several, senator coburn met with her today as well. she actually went back to the bombing in africa and the then assistant secretary of state for african affairs, you know, prior job. take a listen. >> i'm also very troubled by the fact that we seem not to have learned from the 1998 bombings of two of our embassies in africa, at the time when ambassador rice was the assistant secretary for african affairs. >> senator talking about the attacks on both tanzania and kenya, killed 224 people, injured another 4500. and, senator went on to say both cases ambassador begged for additional security. fair criticism? >> that she did beg for additional securi
suggesting it was sparked by a spontaneous protest accompanied by acting cia director michael morell, rice explained she was using unclassified talking points which were stripped of references to al qaeda, still classified by the intelligence community. so rice used the word extremist. >> extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. >> reporter: a source inside the meeting tells cnn rice admitted to gop senators she was aware of classified information suggesting al qaeda was behind the attack, and yet gop senators point out she still said this publicly. >> we have decimated al qaeda. >> reporter: cnn also was told rice tried to clarify to gop senators what she meant was al qaeda's poor leadership has been decimated but gop senators say it is proof rice was putting pre-election spin before national security. >> it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obama three weeks before an election. >> reporter: ambassador rice, what do you say to republicans who say your comments were politically motivated? rice didn't answer our questio
that caused a problem. it was the acting cia director michael murrell who went with her to this meeting with the three republican senators, told them that it was actually the fbi that changed the unclassified talking points that susan rice used and then really made them mad about that. then hours later called back and said, never mind. we were wrong. so they didn't even -- he didn't even have his facts right in that meeting, which really adds fuel to the fire here. >> okay. and not picking on susan rice but i have to lay this by you. i mean, isn't it part rice's personality the editor at large of foreign policy magazine describes rice this way, quote, she's not easy. i'm not sure i'd want to take her on a picnic with my family, but if the president wants her to be secretary of state, she'll work hard. this is from a reuters article. so is it in part that senators aren't used to dealing with a person -- i mean, susan rice just comes out and kind of says things. she's blunt. she's not charming, warm, etcetera. >> or maybe some might say diplomatic which you need for the role of secretary
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)